Regards,

Johnn Four
johnn@roleplayingtips.com
________________________________________

From: Jan

Hi!

The first ideas that came to my mind regarding your request was this:
1. As already mentioned in Issue #51, GMs often reward players unconsciously for combat. In most RPG-Scenarios the group can be successful if they're tough enough. The idea is just that the GM has to create a situation that shows the players something else. He could provide scenarios, villains, whatever, that obviously cannot be overcome by brute force.
2. Once the players get the idea, it is important to keep them on it. In case they're not very used to (because they always battled their way) being polite or using tricks or nice words (or whatever the helpless GM wants them to do) they might behave clumsy. Doesn't matter. They've got to be rewarded anyway by (see Issue #51 again) positive social reactions, money, items or whatever. By seeing that their efforts are successful they will perhaps be astonished, but in the long run they will change their tactics.
3. This is why the reward is so important: No matter how clumsy they behave while trying the new way, if they don't succeed they will return to the axe and battle again...

________________________________________

From: Robin P.

Hello,

The following is what I did to move my players' focus from combat (or action in general) to roleplaying:

The primary reason for combat to be seen as a handy tool for solving problems in RPGs, and thus the plot, is that to kill enemies is the most obvious way to win. To counter that I have begun to construct plots in a way that encourages different solutions. Combat is still possible, and the villains can be defeated and killed - but the players will always find that dead men tell no tales. None of their questions can be answered, as there is no-one left to answer them; and like the hydra evil just grows a new head.

An example: in a current Werewolf: The Apocalypse game of mine, various Wyrm-tainted factions work against the PCs. Some of those factions work together, all have additional plans of their own, some don't know each other - but if one faction is wiped out without the PCs trying to find out as much as possible the others get a clear advantage: while the PCs believe they have won the other factions can continue working in secret until its time to attack again.

Or let's say the forces of evil find their way to the world the PCs inhabit by means of a dimensional rift. The PCs may just kill the invaders to halt the attack this time; but they must be made to see that it all can happen again if they did not try to find out first what caused the rift and what may close it again.

If the players like the roles of completely clueless PCs and do not care about the why and wherefore of their antagonists' plans they should always be met with some kind of justice. The authorities might question their actions and ask for a good explanations - and 'he was such an evil person' just doesn't qualify.
________________________________________

From: Dylan C.

Hi,

First, let me congratulate you on an excellent newsletter packed with genuinely useful tips. If only I could fit the entire archive on the inside of my DM's screen!

I've recently been putting some thought into the way that combat is presented in many RPGs - as a choreographed, self- contained event which achieves little in terms of long-term atmosphere building and is typically neatly wrapped after the last blow is struck so that the characters can 'get on with the adventure'. Combat, or general contestation, is a useful tool for building suspense and giving characters a sense of accomplishment after emerging victorious. But, to only use it in the manner described above is wasteful. After all, combat can really eat up game time; it makes more sense to get some kind of peripheral benefit out of it than simple plot progression.

The following are some ideas I had for using combat as a strong platform for roleplaying and as a reflective process by which the characters can be exposed to their own attitudes to violence and the attitudes of those around them:
1. Build the characters' combat confidence. If every NPC the heroes fight comes at them with a lethal implement or spell, your players will become used to reacting with similar levels of force, 'just to be on the safe side'. However, if it's obvious that (a) their opponent isn't intending to kill them, and (b) the PCs have a good chance against them without resorting to lethal force, then the chances that they will respond at a similar level are higher.

To illustrate: 'normal' people who are provoked into a street brawl don't attack like berserkers until knocked unconscious. A few sloppy blows are exchanged, some threats and insults are yelled, and a few more punches are thrown. At some point the fighters will decide that this isn't worth it any more and will withdraw. In 'hit point' terms, the fight has never been in danger of becoming lethal; and yet, a confrontation has occurred, and the 'winner' can go on their way satisfied that, in as much as such terms are appropriate, they have 'triumphed' or 'been victorious'. Such tactics will only be employed by players who trust you not to change the rules halfway into a fight; if they're slapping, ripping clothes, and cussing when their opponent suddenly changes tack and pulls a gun, you can bet they will never do it again. So, the trick is to show the players your cards, by allowing them to get a feel of the different levels of danger posed by various common sources of violence in your campaign world. This gives them a better sense of their surroundings and what is considered an acceptable response to different sorts of insult or injury.
2. Modify the types of violence appearing in your game. Not every fight should require the characters to use the maximum level of force of which they are capable; put another way, even gunslingers should get into fistfights. Don't just do this by removing your party from their weapons and resources, because that doesn't have the same impact; instead, try to set up situations which prompt them to resort to other tactics of their own free will. Depending on the flavor of your game, this might have several payoffs; the most obvious is that fights can be concluded without removing a character or NPC from the rest of the adventure or campaign. Additionally, this technique gives you an excuse to prolong and intensify climactic combats: your fireballs are all used up, your defences are gone, and it's down to you and your arch-enemy wrestling in the mud trying to drown each other. The number of times this trick is used in movies is a testament to its ability to get you on the edge of your seat - most notably in Hong Kong action movies, where the protagonists seem to spend most of the final fight using up their heavy weaponry before finally settling the matter with pistols and even bare fists.
3. Stop matching random encounters to your party. This goes against the natural GM reflex, but it's a great tool. So often, GMs weigh encounters up so carefully that every single fight leaves the players feeling the exact same 'That was tough, but we made it' feeling - which can get pretty old after a few months. What happened to the 'Aargh! We were totally outmatched' and 'Boy, we cleaned the floor with those schmucks' feelings? Sometimes, a puny NPC will take on a powerful PC without realising the world of pain he or she is letting themselves in for; by the same token, occasionally a very dangerous opponent will show up, and characters who wade in with a 'Well, I -must- be able to beat this thing, or it wouldn't be in the module' attitude are going to be crying pretty soon. That's life - there's no such thing as 'module balance' in the real world, after all. Using this trick once or twice will encourage your players to evaluate fights before they happen, which ties into the previous techniques and will allow you to get more 'oomph' out of your fight scenes.
4. Get inside your NPCs' heads. I once played a Twilight: 2000 game in which we were struck dumb when a Yugoslav commando surrendered before we could even draw a bead on him. It wasn't that he was scared of us; he could probably have dropped us with a well-placed grenade or even run away before we could get him. But he was taking the long-term view; we were obviously lost, but had several vehicles and were trying to get out of the war zone, and he wasn't that keen on sticking around either. So after tossing his rifle away and putting his hands up, he explained that he'd guide us out of the zone if we took him with. Hey presto - he'd gone from a bunch of numbers to a 'real' person in one action.

It really brought home to us that the faceless hordes we'd been gunning down and blowing up for the last five sessions were sometimes as keen to avoid trouble as we were. And that, in turn, got us thinking about our own motivations. The in-character argument that followed really helped define our characters; the SAS guy wanted to blow him away, the Swiss doctor wanted to take him with, and the rest of us were faced with the uncomfortable reality that we didn't really know. No-one had ever 'told' us the 'rules' - and, of course, this is one of the major themes of T:2000. In this way, a single action by a throwaway NPC can be used to highlight a major theme. Surrender or retreat should always be at the back of your NPCs' minds. Even if they're brave or loyal: look at the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who surrendered who were taken prisoner in World War 2. These men didn't surrender because they were cowards; they surrendered because that's what reasonable people do if they think there's even a tiny chance that it'll stop them from being killed or badly wounded.
5. Think consequences. In too many RPGs, enemies end up cleanly dead or unconscious, leaving the PCs to wander off without a second thought as to the violence they have just perpetrated - except in a personal sense arising from their own wounds. How about assuming that 25% of all casualties are just incapacitated or crippled, but still alive? What are the PCs going to do? 'Put them out of their misery'? If that's the case, make sure to inflict the same type of wounding on the next PC or ally that goes down in combat, and see if they're as quick to suggest euthanasia. Or will they be forced to use their own healing spells, Trauma Team cards, etc., to remedy the damage they have just finished inflicting? Or will they find a middle route? Effective use of this technique allows characters to really stand out from the crowd.

To illustrate: everyone knows RipperJane is a heartless so- and-so, but when she genuinely proposes killing your wounded bodyguard, it's brought home in an undeniable fashion. Conversely, Sir Hiram is well-known for being law-abiding; when he insists on detouring from the adventure for an afternoon so that the orcs you just mixed it up with can be delivered to a hospice, a court, and the gallows (in that order), he isn't just talking the talk any more - he's really getting a chance to act on his beliefs. You may find that your characters start thinking of ways to avoiding or minimising lethal combat rather than simply wading in, which allows you to make more of the fights they do get into.
6. Lead, and they will follow. This ties in with the previous techniques. Not everyone who cultivates a grudge hires assassins or fashions a voodoo doll. How about NPCs who seduce characters' spouses, key their new Mercedes, or let their livestock loose late at night? Not only is this often more meaningful to the players (because these are situations we can all appreciate, whereas few of us know just how it feels to come under direct mortal threat), but it will get them responding in kind rather than just breaking out the firepower.

Two-dimensional violence, of course, is appropriate in some settings and games; Star Wars and Star Trek come to mind. Hence, not all these rules apply in these games, but the general principles are still applicable. Basically, it all comes down to -using- combat to achieve some other goal rather than just as an interval between periods of investigation or interaction, and thereby squeezing more out of your gaming hours.

________________________________________

From: Matt C.

I have had a number of people in my groups who believe that rpg's are the perfect place to mow down innumerable bad guys. They think the biggest guns are always the best. I generally run them separate from my more role oriented play group. Recently I had one player want to switch groups from shoot-um to role oriented. I asked him if he might want to try it first.

This was for his benefit and mine. He needed to get some practice at what he was switching to. And I needed to find a reasonable way to work him into the deep plot of the campaign. Note: What I really hate is the old have everyone meet up at the local bar\tavern:)

I ran a short series of solo adventures which all had titles like a book. I took notes of his actions and the repercussions thereof. Then before the next adventure I would recap our story so far. He began seeing the big picture of a campaign and not just an adventure at a time. Being able to see this continuity he saw his character and his part in the bigger picture. This enabled him to really play his character for the first time. That transition allowed him and his character to move into the role oriented campaign easily. My advice is give your shooters time to come around or have fun with what you've got after all a little hack-n-slash never hurt anybody :P
________________________________________

From: Rob P.

Hi there. First off, I just stumbled upon roleplayingtips.com recently, and I am impressed..

Anyhow, our group is running several games on a rotating basis, and I am GMing a campaign in which one of my players eventually started shooting from the hip, using his character's brute force to beat the bad guy, intimidate the information out of somebody, and so on..

The rest of the party is, as a general rule, happy to back him up when necessary. My solution was this:

After a particularly nasty encounter, a necromancer-type withered one of his limbs, inflicting a physical scar, a useless limb, and some permanent damage (until the arm is restored). The party is now on a quest to find a necromancer powerful enough to restore the limb, and they learned in their first attempt that it's quite easy for an offended mage to say "Look, I'm tired of you threatening me, and I'm not going to heal you. If you kill me, that won't fix your arm either. Find someone else."

He is now somewhat humbled, and the party has learned its lesson, and the limb will be restored in the next session or so.

This worked out rather well because everyone has been having fun, and the quest to heal the powerhouse had been a catalyst for much character development amongst all of the players.
________________________________________

From: Atom P.

I was having the same problem, every encounter would end in a blood bath, especially if the players thought the villain was more powerful then their characters. Fortunately I've been able to turn it around, only one small combat in the last four game sessions.
1. NPCs talk first.
2. Don't give ultimatums.
3. NPCs want to live too.
4. Fear makes them more cautious.
1. NPCs talk first.
This was my fault as a GM, many encounters started with the villain confronting the PCs with sword in hand, ready for a fight. This of course invites combat, an option most PCs won't pass up. If your villain confronts the PCs leaning on a cane, carrying a book, or wearing a smile the PCs are much less likely to react violently. And weapons can always be fast-drawn latter.
2. Don't give ultimatums.
One encounter will always live in infamy. The PCs were trekking through the hills looking for a bandit they had to talk to in order to uncover a plot point; the bandit, as bandits are apt to do, ambushed the party and demanded that the characters hand over all their goods. Even though the Bandit was unarmed and the characters knew they were badly outnumbered they fought back, most of them died. Players don't like to be forced, and given the choice of accepting the inevitable or acting suicidal they often choose the later path.
3. NPCs want to live too.
Most combats in most games feature stupid creatures that fight to the death. This is almost never the case in real life and should not be the case in pretend life either. Even the ugliest bug has a survival instinct, and given the chance it will probably run away if it's life is threatened. NPCs are not an exception, especially since it's no fun for the Barbarian to have to chase every kill; pretty soon he'll wise up and either start talking or find a way to back them into a corner before he starts swinging.
4. Fear makes them more cautious.
How often do your characters get time to rest and recuperate between encounters? What if something nasty was following them, ready to pounce as soon as it saw a weakness? How often do the characters fight in the streets and walk away scott-free? What if the guards were right on top of them as soon as the fight was over? The characters will be a lot less likely to start a start a fight if they are afraid something bigger and meaner is out there ready to clean them up after they have been softened up by something else. Demons, Beholders, Mindflayers, Bandits, all are just smart enough and just greedy enough to follow a party around waiting for just the right moment.